Protect Our Farmers and Families Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 5196

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Environmental Protection

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-13: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.

Last Updated

2026-05-16T08:07:02Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Protect Our Farmers and Families Act of 2025" (H.R. 5196) aims to ban the pesticide diquat nationwide by canceling its registration and prohibiting its future use, citing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Diquat is a herbicide commonly used to control weeds in agriculture and aquatic settings.

Key Provisions

• Cancellation of Registration: Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, a federal law that regulates pesticides), diquat is immediately deemed to cause unreasonable adverse environmental effects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must cancel all registrations for diquat uses effective on the date the bill becomes law.
• Revocation of Food Tolerances: Following cancellation, the EPA must revoke any "tolerances" (safe allowable levels of pesticide residues) or exemptions for diquat or its residues in food, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, a law ensuring food safety).
• Ban on Existing Stocks: Sales and use of any remaining diquat products are prohibited immediately, overriding standard allowances for phasing out inventory under FIFRA.
• Prohibition on Reregistration: The EPA is barred from reregistering diquat in the future under FIFRA's reregistration process, which periodically reviews pesticides for safety.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill accelerates and mandates pesticide cancellation without the typical EPA-led scientific review or public comment periods under FIFRA, which usually allow for evidence-based decisions on environmental risks.
• It eliminates the "existing stocks" provision in FIFRA, which normally permits limited continued sale and use of approved pesticides after cancellation to avoid economic disruption.
• By directly deeming diquat as causing adverse effects, it bypasses the EPA's discretionary authority to assess risks, shifting decision-making power to Congress.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The EPA will face immediate administrative burdens to implement cancellations and revocations, potentially straining resources for compliance monitoring and enforcement. It may also limit the agency's flexibility in pesticide regulation.
• On Citizens: Consumers could benefit from reduced exposure to diquat residues in food and water, potentially improving environmental and public health safety. However, farmers and agricultural workers reliant on diquat for weed control may face higher costs or reduced crop yields during the transition to alternatives.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though U.S. agricultural exports could be affected if trading partners question residue levels during the phase-out; no explicit international provisions are included.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Farmers and Agricultural Producers: Primary users of diquat for weed management; they may need to adopt costlier or less effective alternatives, impacting operations.
• Pesticide Manufacturers and Distributors: Companies producing or selling diquat will lose market access and face inventory disposal costs.
• Environmental and Health Advocacy Groups: Likely supporters, as the ban addresses concerns over diquat's toxicity to aquatic life and potential human health risks.
• Consumers and the General Public: Indirectly affected through safer food supplies and reduced environmental pollution.
• EPA and Regulatory Bodies: Required to enforce the ban, with potential for increased oversight from Congress.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bill's immediate mandates could invite lawsuits from industry stakeholders challenging the lack of due process or scientific justification, potentially testing the balance of power between Congress and administrative agencies like the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Constitutional: It raises questions about congressional overreach into executive agency functions (e.g., EPA's expertise in risk assessment), though it aligns with Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and environmental protection under the Commerce Clause.
• Political: As an introduced bill referred to the House Committees on Agriculture and Energy and Commerce, it reflects partisan or advocacy-driven efforts to prioritize environmental protection over agricultural interests, potentially influencing future pesticide policy debates. No funding or implementation timelines beyond enactment are specified, which could complicate enforcement.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-13: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
• 2025-09-08: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-09-08: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2025-09-08: Introduced in House
• 2025-09-08: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Protect Our Farmers and Families Act of 2025 — issued 2025-09-08 — PDF (3 pages)